API-580 Exam Dumps - API 580 - Risk Based Inspection

API 580, Section 9.3.3 provides clear guidance:

“In the case [of] insufficient failure data… general industry, company, or manufacturer failure data is used. This failure data should be adjusted and made specific to the equipment being analyzed… Qualified persons should make these modifications on a case-by-case basis.”​

Therefore, the standard mandates expert-driven adjustments to general data for it to be useful and accurate for the specific context.

Section 11.6.3 of API 580 defines iso-risk lines:

“An ISO-risk line represents a constant risk level... All items that fall on or very near the ISO-risk line are roughly equivalent in their level of risk.”

This confirms that iso-risk lines plot constant risk across varying combinations of probability and consequence.

API 580 Section 14.3.3 clearly states:

“Once a mitigation strategy is implemented it is prudent to determine how effective the strategy was in reducing the risk to an acceptable level. This should be reflected in a reassessment of the risk and appropriate update in the documentation.”

Thus, option B is correct. Updating standards or team members is not a listed reassessment trigger, and sensitivity analysis alone is a supporting tool, not a trigger.

According to API 580, Section 3.1.28, the definition is clearly stated:

“Logic model: A tool used to depict the effectiveness in depicting a combination of events that could result in a loss of containment event.”

While a physical model (Option A) may represent the progression of release events, and other options (B and D) are not defined within API 580, only a logic model fits the definition used in RBI methodologies to evaluate event combinations leading to failure.

As per API 580, Section 8.3:

“Once a credible damage mechanism(s) has been identified, the associated failure mode should also be identified. For example, local thinning could lead to a pinhole leak in the pressure-containing boundary.”

The example “pit-to-leak” accurately reflects a transition from a damage mechanism (pitting corrosion) to a failure mode (leak). Options B and C are damage modes or mechanisms, and D is a fabrication defect—not a failure mode.

After planning is completed, API 580 Section 6.1 states:

“Once this portion of the RBI planning process has been completed the data and information required for collection should be identified.”

This confirms that the next step involves identifying the data needed for analysis, not directly jumping to failure modes or mitigation.

According to API 580 Section 10.3.3:

“Cost is commonly used as an indicator of potential consequences. Consequence may be expressed in relative monetary units (e.g. dollars)… This will permit adding the different consequences of a single event and facilitate comparisons of risk from one process unit to another.”

Cost can represent multiple consequence dimensions, including production loss, emergency response, equipment damage, fines, and more. This method enables direct comparison of diverse consequence types on a unified basis, making it the most commonly applied indicator in practice.

API 580 highlights that while cost reduction is a potential benefit of RBI, the true focus is risk management and equipment integrity. From Section 12.5:

“Inspection costs can be more effectively managed through the use of RBI… The user should recognize that while there is a potential for the reduction of inspection costs through the utilization of RBI, increased equipment integrity and inspection cost optimization should remain the focus.”

This confirms that the main driver for RBI is not cost elimination, but rather the intelligent allocation of inspection resources to preserve equipment integrity.

Option B is incorrect because RBI does not guarantee elimination of internal inspections — only that some may be deferred or replaced with alternative methods.

Option C generalizes effectiveness without case-by-case evaluation.

Option D is false; RBI is designed to optimize, not increase costs.